Jose 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: cross‐over Duration: 6 weeks Assessment: baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, post‐intervention Country: India
Participants	Pain condition: diabetic peripheral neuropathy Population: adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic peripheral neuropathy Minimum pain intensity: ≥ 50 on 0‐100 scale Inclusion criteria Aged 18‐75 with painful diabetic neuropathy Painful diabetic neuropathy for at least 1 month and having pain of > 50% as assessed by 0‐100 scale Exclusion criteria Physical and mental health comorbidities Total participants randomised: 75 Age in years (median, range): 56 (50‐62) Gender: 30/75 were female Pain duration in years (median, range): 12 (4‐24)
Interventions	Lamotrigine 50‐200 mg Anticonvulsant Flexible dosing dependent upon efficacy and tolerability Identical tablets to amitriptyline Amitriptyline 10‐50 mg TCA Flexible dosing dependent upon efficacy and tolerability Identical tablet to lamotrigine
Outcomes	Pain intensity AEs Withdrawal
Missing data methods	ITT with LOCF
Funding source	NR
Conflicts of interest	None declared
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomised using random number tables by block randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation procedure unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐blind, study drugs appeared identical and matched dosing schedules
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Self‐reported outcomes from blinded participants
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Use ITT and LOCF. Unequal attrition across arms ‐ 100% of participants who completely dropped out did so from the 1st period in one intervention arm. Attrition Total: 7/53 (13.2%) Lamotrigine 50‐200 mg: 0/53 (0.0%) Amitriptyline 10‐50 mg: 7/53 (13.2%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol or trial registration found
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias were identified.